Intercomparison of vertically resolved merged satellite ozone data sets: interannual variability and long-term trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the framework of the SI2N (SPARC (Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate)/IO3C (International Ozone Commission)/IGACO-O3 (Integrated Global Atmospheric Chemistry Observations – Ozone)/NDACC (Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change)) initiative, several long-term vertically resolved merged ozone data sets produced from satellite measurements have been analysed and compared. This paper presents an overview of the methods, assumptions, and challenges involved in constructing such merged data sets, as well as the first thorough intercomparison of seven new long-term satellite data sets. The analysis focuses on the representation of the annual cycle, interannual variability, and long-term trends for the period 1984–2011, which is common to all data sets. Overall, the best agreement amongst data sets is seen in the mid-latitude lower and middle stratosphere, with larger differences in the equatorial lower stratosphere and the upper stratosphere globally. In most cases, differences in the choice of underlying instrument records that were merged produced larger differences between data sets than the use of different merging techniques. Long-term ozone trends were calculated for the period 1984–2011 using a piecewise linear regression with a change in trend prescribed at the end of 1997. For the 1984–1997 period, trends tend to be most similar between data sets (with largest negative trends ranging from −4 to −8% decade−1 in the mid-latitude upper stratosphere), in large part due to the fact that most data sets are predominantly (or only) based on the SAGE-II record. Trends in the middle and lower stratosphere are much smaller, and, particularly for the lower stratosphere, large uncertainties remain. For the later period (1998–2011), trends vary to a greater extent, ranging from approximately −1 to +5% decade−1 in the upper stratosphere. Again, middle and lower stratospheric trends are smaller and for most data sets not significantly different from zero. Overall, however, there is a clear shift from mostly negative to mostly positive trends between the two periods over much of the profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".